Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

atomicmask:Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

Tak the Hideous New Girl:atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

atomicmask:Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

atomicmask:Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

Societal progress comes in pendulum swings. One culture will be virile and manly, the next will be fertile and womanly, then they switch back. It's the natural cycle.

First you have the Iroquois with their five nations and very sensible laws. Then you have a bunch of Europeans who come and cut them down. Then we take a step back, crib from their notes, and decide mother England is too tyrannical and cut the tie. Then, we decide a little more expansion can't hurt. Then we feel bad, start freeing the slaves. Then we decide a six gun's the only real law in the Western Territories. Then we decide that's barbaric and shut it down. Then we decide it's romantic and Wyatt Earp becomes a movie hero. But then we ban alcohol because of fights. Then we restore alcohol because wars at home and abroad. Then free love. Then preppies. Now a swarm of scruffy milquetoast hipsters who don't like violence. Their kids will be bloodthirsty spartan types. Back and forth.

Infernalist:atomicmask: Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

That is a funny leap in logic, considering I state laws are already in place to prohibit murder

atomicmask:Infernalist: atomicmask: Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

That is a funny leap in logic, considering I state laws are already in place to prohibit murder

Not a leap in logic at all. You said murdering someone was a reasonable reaction to finding him in bed with your wife. This implies that you both approve of that sort of thing. Of course, you labeled it as 'fighting for someone you love/care for', but murder's murder when you strip off the poetic words.

doglover:atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

Societal progress comes in pendulum swings. One culture will be virile and manly, the next will be fertile and womanly, then they switch back. It's the natural cycle.

First you have the Iroquois with their five nations and very sensible laws. Then you have a bunch of Europeans who come and cut them down. Then we take a step back, crib from their notes, and decide mother England is too tyrannical and cut the tie. Then, we decide a little more expansion can't hurt. Then we feel bad, start freeing the slaves. Then we decide a six gun's the only real law in the Western Territories. Then we decide that's barbaric and shut it down. Then we decide it's romantic and Wyatt Earp becomes a movie hero. But then we ban alcohol because of fights. Then we restore alcohol because wars at home and abroad. Then free love. Then preppies. Now a swarm of scruffy milquetoast hipsters who don't like violence. Their kids will be bloodthirsty spartan types. Back and forth.

I think there is a lot of truth to that. I think its all about being "against the popular established crowd" over and over again. Warrior culture to wimpy culture and back and forth.

Infernalist:What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

It's called a duel.

Go get a $20 bill. That man? He fought so many duels that "he rattled like a sack of marbles" when he was serving in the White House. There's historical precedent and enough rules, laws, and examples that it's well worth looking into.

My personal favorite is the German Judaical Duel for battles between husbands and wives.

The man had to stand in a pit and was armed with a solid club. The woman was given freedom of movement and armed with a rock in a sock.

Infernalist:atomicmask: Infernalist: atomicmask: Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

That is a funny leap in logic, considering I state laws are already in place to prohibit murder

Not a leap in logic at all. You said murdering someone was a reasonable reaction to finding him in bed with your wife. This implies that you both approve of that sort of thing. Of course, you labeled it as 'fighting for someone you love/care for', but murder's murder when you strip off the poetic words.

No, murder is premeditated violence with the intent to kill against someone. A crime of passion is if you walk in, catch the guy, and plug him in the head with a bullet.

doglover:Infernalist: What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

It's called a duel.

Go get a $20 bill. That man? He fought so many duels that "he rattled like a sack of marbles" when he was serving in the White House. There's historical precedent and enough rules, laws, and examples that it's well worth looking into.

My personal favorite is the German Judaical Duel for battles between husbands and wives.

The man had to stand in a pit and was armed with a solid club. The woman was given freedom of movement and armed with a rock in a sock.

I knew the shooter. He was as decent of a man that any could find. This situation is tragic and his wife now has to live with the fact. He loved her so much and was very happy the other day at breakfast with his son & buddies. She is totally to blame. Wayne was a lovable soul and the photo they show is kinda a smurk. But what better guy to kill than an animal killing pompus ass? RIP Wayne.

The passive types are way into horrible oppressive laws that are anything but wimpy. Do as I say.

The aggressive types are way into bloody war and taking lands and slaves for their warriors to be free in. Do as thou wilt.

Of course, the lower classes are always oppressed and the upper classes are always free, and it's all complicated and the best system is an alloy of many different types.... BUUUUUUUUT, in general it goes war, peace, war, peace, war, peace pretty much on the generational line.